Bill of Rights 1990 In part one of the Bill of Rights, under general provisions, there are clear warnings that any of the rights found in the Act are not supreme law and can fall to Acts inconsistent with any of the rights mentioned. Section 4 states that where there is inconsistencies between Acts, the Bill of Rights will bow. Section 5 states that all rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law in a democratic society. It is important to note that within the Act, there are still procedures in place to up hold all rights where possible. Section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act allows the Court to interpret all other enactment's meanings to be consistent with all rights. This section could perhaps be seen as an immediate remedy to any possible basic or unintentional inconsistencies which can take away an individual's rights. Section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act is also important for upholding human rights, as it creates the mechanism where the Attorney-General is obligated to report an inconsistencies to the Bill of Rights to parliament. This is a paramount section as it keeps the legislator accountable to uphold New Zealanders' individual rights, but it also mitigates any unintentional breaches on any rights. New Zealand's unwritten constitution New Zealand is seen as one of the few countries in the world which does not have a physical document which acts as the state's constitution. New Zealand's unwritten constitution can be seen as a collective of many different acts, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. There are no entrenched Acts or Bills in New Zealand law, therefore the highest power is given to parliament. This therefore means that, if parliament has a majority vote, any piece of legislation can be overturned regardless of how much emphasis the court puts on it. There has been criticism, over the years, in regards to this "unwritten constitution" and much encouragement from the international community to change this. The 2009 Universal Periodic Review on New Zealand, through the Human Rights Council, is a good demonstration of this. In this review concerns were expressed that, due to constitution, not entrenched, there was no overarching protection for human rights. Within the review multiple states expressed their concerns over the lack of protection human rights had, due to the constitutional framework; all states were seen to highly